Mak v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, 240 Cal. App. 4th 60 (2015)

6
informing her that owner Jason Mak intended to reside in her unit. As to that question, no
testimony or other evidence was presented. In fact, the evidence presented suggests
otherwise.”
       The Maks filed a petition for a writ of mandate to set aside the Rent Board
decision and the superior court issued an extensive order denying the petition. The court
rejected the Maks’ challenge to the validity of Regulation 1016 and held that substantial
evidence supports the finding that Burns “moved out in part ‘because of’ the formal
notice. The owners sent an informal owner move-in letter on 1/30/11, but negotiations
did not develop in earnest until after the owners served the formal notice on [2]/23/12.
This suggests that the notice in fact generated negotiating leverage that in part caused the
former tenant to vacate the property.” The court held that Regulation 1016 is “a
reasonable regulation of evictions,” not inconsistent with or preempted by . . .
section 1954.53, subdivision (a). “Regulation 1016 is a narrowly tailored remedy for the
misuse of owner move-in notices [and] is an appropriate regulation of evictions. The
presumption in the regulation is triggered only when an owner move-in notice is not
followed by an owner move-in within one year, the presumption is rebuttable and allows
for owners to put in evidence of their good faith, and the remedy is proportional to the
wrong in that it prevents owners from profiting from the use of less than good faith
notices. Regulation 1016 is not an overbroad or haphazard deterrent to inappropriate use
of owner move-in notices or rent regulation in disguise.”
       The Maks have timely appealed from the denial of their writ petition.
                                        Discussion
       On appeal, the Maks do not dispute that substantial evidence supports the finding
that Burns, the former tenant, was prompted to vacate the premises at least in part by the
60-day notice served upon her and that the presumption created by Regulation 1016
therefore has not been rebutted. Their challenge is to the validity of the regulation, which